Interavailabilty between GWR and TfL at shared stations

[MarlowDonkey]

I happened to come across restriction code HL which restricts the ticket to Hull Trains and GWR. But what about stations with Elizabeth Line services as well, I'm thinking of Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. The semi fast GWR service is less frequent than the Elizabeth Line albeit faster. Would you really be precluded from using an Elizabeth Line TfL service if there would otherwise be a wait for the next GWR service?

 

[Deerfold]

I happened to come across restriction code HL which restricts the ticket to Hull Trains and GWR. But what about stations with Elizabeth Line services as well, I'm thinking of Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. The semi fast GWR service is less frequent than the Elizabeth Line albeit faster. Would you really be precluded from using an Elizabeth Line TfL service if there would otherwise be a wait for the next GWR service?

What tickets does it appear on?

 

[JonathanH]

Would you really be precluded from using an Elizabeth Line TfL service if there would otherwise be a wait for the next GWR service?

If the ticket says Hull Trains and GWR only, then yes, I don't see how it could be argued to be valid on Elizabeth Line services west of Paddington[1], just as it isn't valid on any other services from Kings Cross apart from Hull Trains.

An example is this off-peak return from Twyford to Doncaster.
https://www.brfares.com/!faredetail?orig=TWY&dest=DON&rte=180&ldn=1&tkt=SVR

[1] While Ealing Broadway is a valid interchange for a ticket with a Maltese Cross, the GWR services don't generally stop there.

 

[Deerfold]

Presumably First don't want to share the revenue on these tickets (apart from the payment to London Underground) - there's clearly many other services between London and Doncaster, too.

 

[Surreytraveller]

Presumably First don't want to share the revenue on these tickets (apart from the payment to London Underground) - there's clearly many other services between London and Doncaster, too.

I believe that TfL receive one flat payment to accept all Maltese Cross tickets, so that wouldn't make a difference whether it was on the ticket or not

 

[Sleepy]

Could it just be an oversight on these fares not being modified since tfl took over those services ?

 

[JonathanH]

Could it just be an oversight on these fares not being modified since tfl took over those services ?

I'd imagine that is unlikely given the tickets that Hull Trains issues in conjunction with another operator usually have one other specific named operator.

 

[MrJeeves]

Could it just be an oversight on these fares not being modified since tfl took over those services ?

Probably more likely done to apportion ticketing revenue solely to First Group as they operate both Hull Trains and GWR.

 

[Watershed]

I'd imagine that is unlikely given the tickets that Hull Trains issues in conjunction with another operator usually have one other specific named operator.

Yes, but I think the point being made is that these tickets might predate the transfer of most local GWML services from GWR to the Elizabeth line.

 

[JonathanH]

Yes, but I think the point being made is that these tickets might predate the transfer of most local GWML services from GWR to the Elizabeth line.

That doesn't suggest any oversight going on though. There are Taplow to Doncaster tickets with this routeing which haven't been amended.

 

[Deerfold]

That doesn't suggest any oversight going on though. There are Taplow to Doncaster tickets with this routeing which haven't been amended.

Taplow has GWR trains calling in the late evening/early morning, although typically only one or two a day in each direction (and not at all Sunday night/Monday morning).

 

[Haywain]

That doesn't suggest any oversight going on though. There are Taplow to Doncaster tickets with this routeing which haven't been amended.

Because of clustering for fares purposes there can be cases of fares between station pairs that cannot be used because of TOC restrictions.

 

[Wallsendmag]

It does what it says on the tin it’s as valid on LNER and GC as it is on the Elizabeth line.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

It does what it says on the tin it’s as valid on LNER and GC as it is on the Elizabeth line

I would have thought the key point is that now there are two operators between Paddington and Reading, tickets where this is the "local" part of the longer journey should be &connections rather than GWR only.

Without splitting I don't think journey planners will show Hull Trains options from Taplow, say, to Hull.

I think the same may still apply on GWR only. If you look at Advance tickets from Thames Valley stations to West Country destinations, they may be flagged GWR only. That means a restricted choice of trains for getting to Reading, unless you split at Reading.

But what would a TfL inspector do if they met a GWR and Hull Trains ticket on an Elizabeth Line train west of Ealing Broadway?

 

[Haywain]

But what would a TfL inspector do if they met a GWR and Hull Trains ticket on an Elizabeth Line train west of Ealing Broadway?

They would deal with it in the same way as they would deal with any other case of a passenger failing to present a valid ticket.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

This really isn't hard - it's a TOC only ticket restricted to specific TOCs as printed on the ticket. It is deliberately designed this way, and there is no obligation to even make this ticket available. It's a wholly commercial decision by First Group Rail to ensure that they don't have to divide the revenue with anyone else.

You'll get a Penalty Fare or reported for prosecution attempting to use it on Elizabeth line (or any other TOC) outside of central London - probably the latter if you knowingly attempted to do so, as it clearly intent to avoid payment of the correct fare.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

This really isn't hard - it's a TOC only ticket restricted to specific TOCs as printed on the ticket. It is deliberately designed this way, and there is no obligation to even make this ticket available. It's a wholly commercial decision by First Group Rail to ensure that they don't have to divide the revenue with anyone else.

.

Are you quite sure about that? Back in the day when FGW as they then were ran all the services between London and Reading, such a ticket would be logical. As it is now, passengers wishing to travel to Hull or other destinations using Hull Trains services are at best inconvenienced on their connecting journey up to London, and at worse seemingly run the risk of prosecution.

Is there no consumer protection to get the eligibility changed to &connections? Perhaps the semi-nationalisation promised by the Labour party will change this, although isn't the plan for open operators to remain?

 

[Haywain]

Are you quite sure about that? Back in the day when FGW as they then were ran all the services between London and Reading, such a ticket would be logical.

I think it is reasonable to assume that the two companies knew what they intended when the ticket was set up, and have not been surprised by the transfer of those services to TfL in the interim. Therefore the lack of any change to the routeing suggests that it is entirely intentional.

Is there no consumer protection to get the eligibility changed to &connections?

No, none at all. It's a commercial product.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I really don't understand what you're struggling with here....

I am certain, it is definitely intentional and these tickets are completely unregulated with no requirement for them to even exist at all.

Some tickets are just not logical or are difficult to use, sometimes even impossible.

 

[Deerfold]

If these tickets are very hard to find itineraries for, it'll also be tricky to buy them from most channels. There's many tickets that are likely to sell none or near-to-none.

If you're going to a larger station it's likely to be easy to find a connecting GWR service. There's only a handful (5-7) of Hull Trains services from Doncaster each day of the typically 66 trains a day a day.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I think it is reasonable to assume that the two companies knew what they intended when the ticket was set up, and have not been surprised by the transfer of those services to TfL in the interim. Therefore the lack of any change to the routeing suggests that it is entirely intentional.

The fact that North Cotswolds—High Wycombe tickets are still priced commensurate with a via-London routing, over seven years after Chiltern services started running from Oxford, suggests that the railway might not be quite as good at adjusting its fares to network changes as you are implying.

 

[Deerfold]

The fact that North Cotswolds—High Wycombe tickets are still priced commensurate with a via-London routing, over seven years after Chiltern services started running from Oxford, suggests that the railway might not be quite as good at adjusting its fares to network changes as you are implying.

This fare was designed to only be valid on First group companies. It still is.

 

[redreni]

This fare was designed to only be valid on First group companies. It still is.

In fairness that tallies with my experience of booking with Hull Trains - they don't seem to do "& connections" as a general rule. All part of the fragmentation of the national rail network.

It is a pain, but one can always split the tickets (using London Underground Zones 1-2 as a destination or origin as necessary to make the tickets join up) and so retain the ability easily to demonstrate to staff, in the event of disruption, that you're making a through journey on a valid itinerary for which you had already bought the tickets before the disruption began. Not that it's of much practical help if you miss a connection onto a Hull Trains service given how infrequent they are.

 

[JonathanH]

All part of the fragmentation of the national rail network.

The "Hull Trains & Operator" fares wouldn't exist without fragmentation of the national rail network.

It is all very well complaining about only being able to travel on a specific train or a specific operator, but in most cases that restriction offers a fare that wouldn't be available without that restriction.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I really don't understand what you're struggling with here....

I am certain, it is definitely intentional and these tickets are completely unregulated with no requirement for them to even exist at all.

Some tickets are just not logical or are difficult to use, sometimes even impossible.

So why isn't the rail industry taking steps either to reform or withdraw them?

It would mean booking engines would automatically have to go to split ticketing when no direct ticket was available. Taplow to Hull is an example, trying to get an Advance on a Hull Trains service with one ticket being ruled out because there are no longer regular GWR trains from Taplow.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

So why isn't the rail industry taking steps either to reform or withdraw them?

It would mean booking engines would automatically have to go to split ticketing when no direct ticket was available. Taplow to Hull is an example, trying to get an Advance on a Hull Trains service with one ticket being ruled out because there are no longer regular GWR trains from Taplow.

I'm very confused - it seems to only be you that has a problem with these tickets.

They exist because they're either commercially successful and/or attractive for those that do use them, and the fact that they don't really cost GWR/Hull Trains anything to make them available for sale even if they go unused. Why would they be removed?

Why would they need reform? It would almost certainly mean a price increase if these fares were removed or reformed - or had their validity increased.

 

[Haywain]

So why isn't the rail industry taking steps either to reform or withdraw them?

Because they don't need to. If they can't be sold why do they need to be withdrawn?

It would mean booking engines would automatically have to go to split ticketing when no direct ticket was available.

Or just sell the available through tickets, as they do now.

 

[Deerfold]

So why isn't the rail industry taking steps either to reform or withdraw them?

It would mean booking engines would automatically have to go to split ticketing when no direct ticket was available. Taplow to Hull is an example, trying to get an Advance on a Hull Trains service with one ticket being ruled out because there are no longer regular GWR trains from Taplow.

Because this is in line with the way the Rail Industry is currently set up.

LNER have chosen to have &connections tickets. They'll sell more of these as there's a lot more connections that work, but they're more expensive than Hull&GWR. If you force Hull Trains (who are not a franchise operator) to have &connections tickets they're at liberty to decide not to offer them at all.

 

[redreni]

The "Hull Trains & Operator" fares wouldn't exist without fragmentation of the national rail network.

It is all very well complaining about only being able to travel on a specific train or a specific operator, but in most cases that restriction offers a fare that wouldn't be available without that restriction.

True, but I can't help thinking that argument carried a lot more weight in the mid noughties, say, when advances with booked train only and TOC restrictions were widely available and often cheap as chips.

I'm not sure the benefits of these heavily restricted tickets are as obvious today. Arguably their existence has contributed to an environment where, politically, flexible fares have been able to rise way faster than wages and, so to speak, the Minister, when confronted with questions about how expensive train tickets are, has been able to remind the honourable member that it can be much cheaper to book in advance.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

If you force Hull Trains (who are not a franchise operator) to have &connections tickets they're at liberty to decide not to offer them at all.

For tickets that cannot be used such as Taplow to Hull, wouldn't it be better if they didn't exist? How much extra would substituting &connections for GWR add to the price of the ticket? For the Open tickets such as (Super) Off Peak there are Any Permitted and Hull & GWR. The Any Permitted tickets seem only a couple of pounds more. They give extra validity on LNER services which is arguably of value.